Legal Opinion

Okuma America Corp. v. Bowers

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 2, 2007No. COA 06-472PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WYNN, Judge.

When considering the enforceability of a covenant not to compete, a court examines the reasonableness of its time and geographic restrictions, balancing the substantial right of the employee to work with that of the employer to protect its legitimate business interests. 1 Here, Plaintiff Okuma America Corporation appeals the trial court’s grant of Defendant Phillip Bowers’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, finding that the covenant in question was “overly broad and unenforceable as a matter of law.” Because we find that the covenant’s enforceability in this case rests on questions of fact…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. United Laboratories, Inc. v. KuykendallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  2. A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Peoples Security Life Insurance v. HooksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  4. Visionair, Inc. v. James & Colossus Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
  5. Hartman v. WH Odell and Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Medical Staffing Network, Inc. v. RidgwayCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  2. Kinesis Advertising, Inc. v. HillCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
  3. Piles v. Allstate InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
  4. Horner International Co. v. McKoyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2014
  5. Philips Electronics North America Corp. v. HopeDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2009

33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API